October 29, 2006
The Seattle Times Confesses
Yes, editorial page editor Jim Vesely spilled the beans today about how they endorse candidates. Contrary to conspiracy-laden assertions of the liberal blogosphere, the Times editorial board actually uses their brains. Granted, while one may not find it easy to agree with the totality of their endorsements in any given year, you've got to give them points for honesty.
A couple of Vesely's points are particularly pertienent to past discussions here at Sound Politics about how this process works. Notably contrary to the assertions of the netroots that their way of thinking about candidates is the only pure way, Vesely says:
As with any daily newspaper in a country divided, a region divided and a state divided, readers and commentators tend to look in a mirror when deciding how their daily news, opinion and comic strips appeal to them that day. That explains why anyone can cherry-pick an endorsement and argue selectively that the paper's judgment is flawed.
I like to think our world, the one you and I share, is more complicated than that. An endorsement for a major political office is not a checklist; it is a combination of events and emotions that catch a moment and, with an editorial eye, tries to bring an accumulation of opinions to a boil.
Not a "checklist" you say? Josh Feit at the Stranger thinks it should be so. I'm disappointed...well, not really, Feit's error on this point was discussed in the 2nd half of this post outlining a different implosion of the liberal mind.
Also of interest, Vesely concedes the closeness of the McGavick endorsement. Ah, and here I thought it was all about the estate tax, and Frank Blethen generally being a despicable person. Silly me.
Yet of even more of note, was this revelation: "On Reichert, the staff was nearly unanimous for the incumbent." The staff? You mean the staff included on this list? That would be the same staff that would likely admit they themselves tilt to the left-of-center. But they nearly all supported endorsing Reichert? That must mean they found Darcy Burner exceptionally unqualified. Oh dear.
We at Sound Politics can likely agree the Times isn't our favorite source for editorial writing, though it beats reading the
Posted by Eric Earling at October 29, 2006
07:31 PM | Email This
Left Coast version of the New York Times, the Seattle PI. Yet, you have to give the Times points for candor, and for having the gumption to speak their mind, rather than bow to the close-minded, liberal mood that dominates the city from which they publish.
I find it pathetic that every time you look at a liberal blog from the area (HA or NWP, et al), it is filled with hateful meandering. The absolute blind hypocracy of the liberals, specifically in this area, is mind boggling. Everytime someone says something they halfway disagree with, out comes the four letter words, personal attacks and pointless comments. And this coming from a guy, as Eric can attest, is known at times for using language that could make a sailor blush.
It must just be killing the liberals that someone (the Times editorial staff) had an original thought and the integrity to do the right thing (like discuss and vote on the opinion).
I'm going to call and get a subscription now. Make up for at least one of those nutballs that canceled theirs. Of course, they will probably resubscribe when they get that phone call from the Times telemarketers about an inheritable subscription for $13.
Now on to the PI. What's going on with the JOA?? What would happen in this city if the Times started thinking straight and the PI went under???
I guess we always have the Stranger...
2. And then there's Mike Fancher's column about how the Times keeps its editorial opinions out of its political coverage. You can find it inside the section with the lead story about how the state's influence will grow dramatically if only we elect a majority of Democrats to Congress.
Eric writes: Contrary to conspiracy-laden assertions of the liberal blogosphere, the Times editorial board actually uses their brains.
Not sure about the liberal blogosphere, but that is certainly contrary to how Stefan says he makes endorsements, which is to look for anyone with "(R)" by their name. A monkey could do that.
4. Sorry Bruce, but you'll likely have more success with that line in venues where the readers are less likely to have read Stephan's full comments, in context.
5. So Bruce, are you voting for anyone without a (D) next to their name this year? Care to share?
6. Too bad they don't apply a real thought process to the general content of the paper. I gave up my subscription because I got tired of their sloppy, one-sided reporting.
Is what they are telling you what they are really doing?
The MSM/LSM has a well earned reputation for anything but the truth...
I guess "The Truth" is anything that makes them money or guarantees them access to thugs, crooks, despots and sensational (non) stories.
Yep, got cynical and totally lost the idea that real and useful information could *really* come from the LSM.
STILL trying to figure out if there is any point to voting in this state.